alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 976 

To extend the designation of Monroe County, Pennsylvania, as a HUBZone, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 12, 2011 

Mr. CASEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

A BILL 

To extend the designation of Monroe County, Pennsylvania, 

as a HUBZone, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Monroe County 

5 HUBZone Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HUBZONE DESIGNATION. 

7 For purposes of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

8 631 et seq.), Monroe County, Pennsylvania, shall be a 

9 HUBZone until not earlier than October 1, 2014. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
# C_2019164EN.01005101.xml

| 13.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/51

---

Order of the General Court of 13 March 2019 — Comune di Milano v Parliament and Council

(Case T-75/19) (1)

(Declining of jurisdiction)

(2019/C 164/55)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Comune di Milano (represented by: F. Sciaudone, M. Condinanzi and A. Neri, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio, I. Anagnostopoulou and A. Tamás, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer, F. Florindo Gijón and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, claim under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Regulation (EU) 2018/1718 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 as regards the location of the seat of the European Medicines Agency (OJ 2018 L 291, p. 3), and, second, claim for a decision allegedly adopted by the Council on 20 November 2017 to be declared ineffective.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The General Court declines jurisdiction in Case T-75/19 in order to enable the Court of Justice to rule on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The General Court declines jurisdiction in Case T-75/19 in order to enable the Court of Justice to rule on the action.

| 2. | The decision on the Comune di Milano’s request that the present action be determined under an expedited procedure is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The decision on the Comune di Milano’s request that the present action be determined under an expedited procedure is reserved.

| 3. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2003, (the Report) of The Hillman Companies, Inc. (the
Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof; I, Max W. Hillman, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant,
certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Registrant.



| | /s/ Max W. Hillman
Name: Max W. Hillman
Date: November 12, 2003
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0589 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. TIMOTHY ERIC RITESMAN,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including November 20 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 3 2024

10/03/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0589
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                  ---------------------------------------------

         In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report of Pacific
State Bancorp (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report'), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
best of their knowledge, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or
          15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company



                                  Date: September 16, 2005

                                  BY: /s/ STEVEN A. ROSSO
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  President and Chief Executive Officer
                                  Date: September 16, 2005


                                  BY: /s/ JOANNE ROBERTS
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  Senior Vice President and
                                  Chief Financial Officer
                                  Date: September 16, 2005
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 21.2
                  SUBSIDIARIES AND JOINT VENTURE OF REGISTRANT

              TB WOOD'S CORPORATION, SUBSIDIARIES AND JOINT VENTURE

                                DECEMBER 31, 2004

Registrant: TB Wood's Corporation (Delaware)

    Subsidiary: TB Wood's Incorporated (Pennsylvania)

        Subsidiaries: Plant Engineering Consultants, LLC (Tennessee)

                      T.B. Wood's Canada Ltd (Canada)

                      Industrial Blaju, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)

                      Berges electronic GmbH (Germany

                        Subsidiary: Berges electronic S.r.l. (Italy)

                      TB Wood's Enterprises, Inc. (Delaware)

        Joint Venture: TB Wood's (India) Private Limited (India)
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 135 (Monday, July 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38089-38090]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15310]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW,

[[Page 38090]]

Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than August 18, 2021.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Community Capital Bancorp, Inc., Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin; to 
become a bank holding company by acquiring Collins Bankcorp, Inc., and 
thereby indirectly acquiring Collins State Bank, both of Collins, 
Wisconsin.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 14, 2021.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2021-15310 Filed 7-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Miguel Viera, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered September 12, 1983, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The People met their burden of proving defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt including disproving defendant’s "agency” defense. Generally, an agency defense raises an issue of fact for the jury to determine whether defendant acted solely on behalf of the buyer without any personal motive in promoting the sale *(see, e.g., People v Lam Lek Chong,*45 NY2d 64). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Kennedy,*47 NY2d 196), defendant’s conduct evinced sufficient indicia of "[s]alesman-like behavior” *(People v Roche,*45 NY2d 78, 85) for the jury to determine that he was not acting on behalf of the undercover police buyer alone and had a personal interest in promoting the transaction *(see, e.g., People v Argibay,*45 NY2d 45, 53-54).

We have examined the issues raised by defendant *pro se*and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Kooper, JJ., concur.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-22-00071-CR

WILLIAM A. SARRINGAR AKA COREY 

D. REYNOLDS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 371st District 

Court

of Tarrant County (0807182D)

July 7, 2022

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Israel Soto, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.), rendered April 27, 1983, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of *8V2*to 17 years.

Judgment affirmed.

While defendant has raised some doubt as to the substantive sufficiency of his guilty plea, he never objected to the adequacy of the plea allocution at Criminal Term, and thus has failed, as a matter of law, to preserve his claim for appellate review *(see, People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Santiago,*100 AD2d 857). A reversal in the interest of justice is not warranted. Defendant’s plea was the product of plea bargaining, freely entered into by him with the advice of counsel, under which the plea and sentence were in satisfaction of a 13-count indictment. The plea enabled defendant to avoid the possible imposition of a much longer sentence of imprisonment *(see, People v Ebron, 87*AD2d 653). There is no indication that the plea was not entered into knowingly and voluntarily. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 99.1



                             CERTICATION PURSUANT TO
                 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In  connection  with  the Annual Report of Amanasu Technologies Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year-ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charlie
Lan,  Chairman, President, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

          1.   I  have  reviewed  the  Report;

          2.   based  on  my  knowledge,  the Report does not contain any untrue
               statement  of  a  material  fact or omit to state a material fact
               necessary  to  make  the  statements  made,  in  light  of  the
               circumstances  under  which  such  statements  were  made,  not
               misleading  with respect to the period covered by the Report; and

          3.   based  on  my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and other
               financial  information  included in the Report, fairly present in
               all  material  respects  the  financial  condition,  results  of
               operations,  and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
               periods  presented  in  the  Report.

/s/  Charlie  Lan
-----------------
Charlie  Lan,  Chairman,  President
Secretary  and  Chief  Financial  Officer
(Principal  Executive  Officer)
(Principal  Financial  Officer)
NUMBER 13-14-00286-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

IN THE INTEREST OF M.F. & J.F., CHILDREN

On appeal from County Court at Law No. 5 

of Nueces County, Texas.

O R D E R

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Benavides

Order Per Curiam

This is an appeal of a final order terminating parental rights. Appellant’s brief in 

this matter was due on July 28, 2014. On July 23, 2014, appellant filed a motion for 

extension of time seeking an additional twenty days to file the brief.

Appeals in parental termination and child protection cases are governed by the 

rules of appellate procedure for accelerated appeals, but include additional expedited 

deadlines and procedures. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4;TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a). The 

intermediate appellate courts are directed to ensure "as far as reasonably possible" that 

appeals are brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is 
2

filed. See TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a). Given the nature of these cases and the 

shortened appellate deadlines, the Court does not favor motions for extension of time to 

file the record or briefs. In accordance with the limited time for consideration of these 

appeals, it is the policy of this Court to limit extensions of time to file a brief to one tenday extension of time absent truly extraordinary circumstances. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

38.6(d). 

Accordingly, we ORDER appellant’s counsel, the Honorable G. Marc Cervantes, 

to file the brief within ten days of the date of this order. No further extensions of time will 

be granted absent truly exigent and extraordinary circumstances. The Clerk of this Court 

is ORDERED to serve a copy of this order on appellant by certified mail, return receipt 

requested.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed this

28th day of July 2014.
#### In the Matter of Melvin Peters, Petitioner, v Robert Mandelbaum et al., Respondents.

[944 NYS2d 713]

The above-named petitioner having presented an application to this Court praying for an order, pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, now, upon reading and filing the papers in said proceeding, and due deliberation having been had thereon, it is unanimously ordered that the application be and the same hereby is denied and the petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Concur — Tom, J.E, Catterson, Richter, AbdusSalaam and Román, JJ.
# C_2019432EN.01001801.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/18

---

Appeal brought on 29 July 2019 by KID-Systeme GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2019 in Case T-354/18: KID-Systeme v EUIPO

(Case C-577/19 P)

(2019/C 432/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: KID-Systeme GmbH (represented by: R. Kunze, G. Würtenberger, Rechtsanwälte, T. Wittmann, Rechtsanwältin)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 10 October 2019 the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal is not allowed to proceed and that KID-Systeme GmbH shall bear its own costs.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1




                 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                              PURSUANT TO
                        18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                         AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
               SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Weston Technologies Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic
Report"), I, Yi Sen Wong, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

    1.   the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

    2.   the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.


Dated: May 20, 2004


/s/ Yi Sen Wong
------------------------
Yi Sen Wong
Chief Executive Officer
# C_2019432EN.01007201.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/72

---

Order of the General Court of 23 October 2019 — Taghani v Commission

(Case T-313/19) (1)

(2019/C 432/83)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.

---
#### Jonathan Glenn DOWDY, a/k/a Jonathan G. Dowdy, a/k/a Jonathan M. Dowdy, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 08-7176.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2009.

Decided: Jan. 15, 2009.

Jonathan Glenn Dowdy, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, Columbia, South Carolina, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, Judges, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit.

*825PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Glenn Dowdy seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dowdy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
<PAGE>   1




                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors
Healthdyne Information Enterprises, Inc.

         We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 33-99034, 333-08271, 333-08279, 333-08283, 333-08287, 333-08293, and
333-08295) on Form S-8 of Healthdyne Information Enterprises, Inc. of our
reports dated January 23, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Healthdyne Information Enterprises, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31,
1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
shareholders' equity and cash flows and related schedule for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997, which reports appear in the
December 31, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of Healthdyne Information
Enterprises, Inc.



                              KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP



Atlanta, Georgia
March 20, 1998
#### BISHOP, ET AL., V. McKAY, ET AL.

(Decided Feb. 6th, 1908.)

Appeal from Talladega City Court.

Heard before Hon. G. K. Miller.

Knox, Dixon & Burr, and Cabaniss & Bowie, for appellant.

Whitson & Harrison, for appellee.

Dismissed by agreement.

Per curiam.